Justice Committee on June 12th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to meeting number 78 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Wednesday, June 12. I apologize to our witnesses for the delay, but we were voting in the House.

Our meeting today is televised. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 28, 2013, Bill C-54, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act, we have two panels, and then we're going to do clause-by-clause.

Our first panel is here. We have three groups of witnesses, each with 10 minutes. Our first witness is Mr. Thomas Frederick Shreeve, who is appearing as an individual.

You have 10 minutes, sir.

[Thomas Frederick Shreeve, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I am here today to ask for your consideration of my experiences in dealing first-hand with the mental health system in the province of Ontario, specifically related to “not criminally responsible” and its designation. The background I have to give you on this is a minute or so long.

I have a brother who is currently in the mental health system, having been determined to be not criminally responsible on two counts of second-degree murder. First-degree murder was not substantiated to the court's definition. He was withdrawn by nature, being a paranoid schizophrenic. It was, however, undisputed that the murder weapon used to kill the victims was taken from his house, some three-eighths of a mile from where the index offence occurred, on June 19, 1997.

The victims were my parents, Fred and Agnes Shreeve, who were in their mid-seventies at the time. The murders were extremely heinous in nature, both involving multiple stabbings causing death, with blunt force trauma, and post-death, strangulation and drowning in both of them. My brother's stay in the maximum secure unit at Oak Ridge, in Penetang, Ontario, began in the late 1990s. He has been in the medium secure unit at Ontario Shores in Whitby for the last six years.

My sister and I were in daily contact with the police as they investigated, with up to 24 officers involved in the investigation in the days after the index offence. We remained in contact with the police throughout their investigation and report prior to legal proceedings. I attended my brother's trial, his not criminally responsible hearing, and all but one of his review boards, both at Oak Ridge and at Ontario Shores.

I have yet to speak to my brother. However, I have been and continue to be his guardian regarding medication. Where options were provided to me, I have consciously made decisions along the way that resulted in medications that were more kind to his body. I have consistently offered to be available as a resource to provide some background history. I have consistently voiced my very deep concerns for my family's safety and also have reiterated my willingness to assist where it may be helpful.

I have a number of experiences that I would like to share with you.

Neither I nor the parents I represent have any standing at review board hearings. The crown attorney has respectfully asked for my thoughts and issues that I would like them to bring up on my family's behalf. I sit behind the crown attorney, as I am not afforded a seat at the table. I have been politely recognized for my attendance at past review boards. At past review boards, the crown has been spoken to strongly when they have restated my family's deep concern for our own safety, the chair indicating to the crown that the review board members were capable of reading and therefore did not need to be reminded of the family's concern for their safety.

I ask for status at the review board hearing to be available to the victim or the family of the victim, to be part of the discussion at their option.

Second, I observed over the time that my brother has been in the system a dilution of the briefs of the index offence and the background. There is no one on his treatment team who could locate or speak about any of the facts of the court proceedings. The trial brief and in-depth police report of some 2,500 pages, including, of course, many pages of photographs, had not even been read by one member of his treatment team. Further, when I inquired about this recently, I was informed that the court documentation and the police synopsis and briefs are not part of his file, as “this is a hospital”.

I ask that in index offences, particularly involving murder, the treatment team have a representative assigned to be knowledgeable on the facts and the documentation of the case, particularly the time around the index offence, as a point of reference, if for no other reason. As I indicated earlier, there were 24 police officers involved in the investigation. There was an awful lot of good work that went into this.

Third, I recently asked for the brief as it was presented last year so I could offer corrections to it. I was told that my brother's permission would be necessary for me to obtain a copy of it.

I ask that victims or their families have the right to pertinent documents without requiring notification of the accused.

Fourth, at the end of the proceedings that included both the trial and the not criminally responsible hearing, the court ordered that the local police service and the landowners of the properties related to the index offence were to be notified in the event that my brother was to be transferred or moved. I asked about this after my brother was moved from the maximum secure unit at Oak Ridge to the medium secure unit at Ontario Shores. These are both in Ontario. I distinctly remember being told something to the effect that “it was not their business”.

I remember this only because it was in direct contradiction to what the court requirement was, as I had input into what the crown requested and was granted at the end of the trial and the NCR hearing.

I ask that court orders be given strength so that someone is responsible, with real consequences. The court order was made as a result of the trial and the NCR hearing, backed up by 18 months of police and crown attorney work. It was not made without due consideration of the facts.

Fifth, my brother had the consistency of having the same lawyer as counsel for eight to ten years. His early clinical reports at Oak Ridge indicated that he did not attend any group events or participate in any activities. Over the years, he began to participate in group events and undertake very limited participation, listening to his lawyer's advice. Every year my brother's compliant behaviour was championed, even though there was very little psychiatric progress to understand how his mind worked.

I ask that good behaviour be recognized in its proper context, that it is, in fact, a small part of the formula to be cascaded down to the next level, particularly in index offences involving murder.

Sixth, last year his psychologist had no background information on my brother's behaviour prior to the index offence that he had committed at 40 years of age. She seemed unaware that he had no record of involvement with the local police, or that no physical altercations had occurred with my parents, while she very strongly advocated that he was not a management risk. My point here is that there was no prior activity or no prior violence.

It appears she was unaware that the psychiatrist at Oak Ridge in 2008 pointed out very clearly that my brother was a very unique individual, displaying none of the common symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia, of which he has been diagnosed. He also made it clear that, in his opinion, Mr. Shreeve will require a long period of living in a medium secure hospital unit. As a result, perhaps his model patient status, which the psychologist championed so highly, should have been discounted substantially or viewed with the background information to have a proper perspective.

I ask that a clear understanding that there is real progress on psychiatric understanding be recognized in its proper context, that it is in fact a proportional part of the formula to be cascaded to the next level, particularly in index offences involving murder.

Seventh, he was asked by one of his team members a few years ago if he had any interest in his siblings. There was a list of names found during the police investigation, brought up at trial. His response was no. I'm in disbelief that this has formed part of the basis for the psychologist's reasoning for strongly advocating that he be moved on to minimum secure. My name was on that list. The names of my siblings were on that list.

I ask that “least restrictive environment” be recognized proportionally to victims' rights, as well as the severity of the index offences, particularly index offences involving murder.

Eighth, in contemplating the move from Oak Ridge to Ontario Shores in 2007, no one in attendance could speak to how my brother's daily routine would be impacted. From what I gather, in many ways his daily routine is more restricted, not less. For example, now he has to be escorted off the unit to go to the cafeteria, as it is off the ward. At Oak Ridge he was free to go to the canteen on his own, as it and many other services and activities were all secure.

I ask that a member of the hospital team present at the review board hearing have a clear understanding of the setting that the patient may be moved into, and be available for the review board so that informed decisions can be made, rather than presuming, for example, that medium secure is less restrictive than maximum secure.

Ninth, the proposed legislation has discussion regarding the creation of a high-risk designation. It must be that the criteria for determining this designation be fairly designed, understanding that victims' rights also have a very significant place. This, considered with the risk to treatment teams, family members, and the general public, must also be given balanced consideration. Reliance on psychiatrists' professional opinions on the real rehabilitation progress of the accused must take precedence over good behaviour.

This process must also recognize that unique cases like those of my brother must have a different method of analysis—i.e., the above-noted reference to Oak Ridge diagnosis that my brother is a very unique individual, displaying none of the common symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia, of which he has been diagnosed. This is especially important when the standard testing scores are in the most acceptable range.

I ask that the development of criteria for determining a high-risk designation balance all of those affected both directly and indirectly, not just the accused, and accommodate properly unique circumstances.

Recently there has been press given to strengthening victims' rights. From my perspective, in the number of years that I have attended review board hearings, victims' rights have had precious little or no weight, while the term “least restrictive environment” has dominated every review board I have attended. Good behaviour has been recognized, while very little ground has been covered on the psychiatric side, resulting in constant pressure to cascade my brother along in the system.

I have been told to prepare for his eventual reintegration into society. The crown attorney has noted very clearly that my brother is an individual who just wants to be left alone.

Court orders regarding the whereabouts of my brother in order to notify the landowners and local police forces at the location of the index offence have been ignored, the implied recognition of my brother's rights deemed more important. There seems to be a real disconnect between the legal and policing systems and the health care system, whereas they should be working cooperatively.

In summary, I request your consideration of the above-noted things that I have observed in the mental health system. While they are specific to my experience, I expect that there are many commonalities. I would like to make it clear that the safety of my brother remains paramount, as well as the safety of our family, those who work in the health care system, and those who are in regular contact with him, as well as the public at large. While rehabilitation into society on some level is the goal for many of our citizens, it must be recognized when doing so will not be realistically attainable.

I thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that presentation and for your testimony, Mr. Shreeve. Thank you for coming and joining us today. There will be questions after.

Our next presenter is from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Ms. O'Sullivan. You have 10 minutes.

[Susan O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and esteemed committee members.

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-54, which seeks to enhance public safety and better meet the needs of victims in cases where an accused is determined to be not criminally responsible, or NCR.

To begin, I would like to take the opportunity to provide a brief overview of our office's mandate.

As you may know, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created in 2007 to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this through our mandate by receiving and reviewing complaints from victims; promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime; providing information and referrals; promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime; raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy-makers about the needs and concerns of victims; and identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively impact on victims of crime.

In other words, we help victims individually and collectively. We help the victims individually by speaking with victims every day, answering their questions, and addressing their complaints. We help victims collectively by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies, or programs to better support victims of crime.

I am pleased to be here today to bring a victim's perspective to this bill. I thank you for your part in wanting to ensure that victims' voices are heard.

Our discussion today focuses on legislation specific to those found to be not criminally responsible for serious personal injury offences, those who, in light of their mental condition, should not be held to account for the crimes they have committed. It is important to keep in mind the distinction between a convicted offender and someone found to be NCR and to ensure that those with mental illnesses are treated appropriately.

I believe strongly in increased supports to help those with mental illness in our communities, and in the importance of support as prevention by helping to address these issues before they result in tragedy. However, I also want to offer you another point to consider throughout your study of this bill. Following any violent crime, regardless of whether the accused is found to be not criminally responsible or a convicted offender, the trauma a victim experiences is, in all cases, devastating. Regardless of the mental condition of an accused, victims' needs must be met and their treatment and rights should be equitable. We know that all victims will need to be treated with respect, to be informed on how the process works and their role within it, to have their needs and input considered, and to be protected from intimidation or harm.

My office has on several occasions spoken with victims and victim advocates, who have brought their concerns regarding this issue to our attention. Through these discussions, we have identified several significant gaps in legislation and policy that ultimately carry negative impacts, on both victims directly and more broadly on public safety.

Two years ago, in June 2011, I wrote to the Minister of Justice recommending certain reforms in the not criminally responsible cases in order to ensure that the needs of victims of crime were met. These recommendations related to two items: the importance of considering both victim and public safety in all release decisions, and the lack of rights, policies, and support in place for victims of NCR cases.

In terms of public safety, my office recommended that review boards give paramount consideration to public safety and ensure that an inquiry is made about the whereabouts of the victims of the offence before making any release recommendations. With respect to the consideration of the victims, we recommended the provision of funding for victims to attend review board hearings and the implementation of notifications for victims regarding the transfer, release, or other status changes of the accused, as is currently available in the federal corrections system.

I am encouraged to see that Bill C-54 addresses a number of our recommendations, and I strongly support these proposed changes. Specifically, I am pleased to see, and strongly support, the prioritization of public safety as the paramount consideration for court and review board decision-making and the increased information provided to victims.

In addition to these elements, Bill C-54 also makes additional changes by proposing a high-risk designation that could be applied to accused persons who meet certain criteria. This particular section of the bill pertains to the effective management and treatment of those determined to be not criminally responsible, which falls outside the scope of the expertise of my office, so I will limit my remarks to the elements of the bill that specifically relate to the victims—the other two issues.

Bill C-54 proposes to ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process for not criminally responsible cases. I think that considering the safety of the public just makes sense to most Canadians. Public safety is without a doubt an issue of concern for all victims. Many, if not most, of the victims I talk to tell me that above all else they do not want what happened to them to happen to anyone else. This increased emphasis on public safety will provide assurance to the victims that their safety is being considered in decisions and may help to further reduce victimization.

Bill C-54 also proposes measures specific to victim safety; namely, that the court and review board consider whether it is desirable in the interests of the safety and security of any person, particularly a victim or witness, to impose a non-communication order or to require that the accused refrain from going to particular locations. While the option for non-communication orders already exists, mandating the requirement to consider this option puts a specific and important emphasis on the consideration of a victim's needs and safety.

Bill C-54 also proposes that victims who request it be notified of conditional or absolute discharges. This change helps to enhance victims' treatment in the system by increasing their access to information, which may further contribute to their sense of safety.

I support these measures entirely.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, regardless of the mental state of the accused, victims have certain basic needs: the need to be informed of the process, including their rights within it, and the need to have their safety considered. Providing victims with information about the accused's progress and release into the community can significantly increase their sense of safety and may increase their confidence that the accused is accessing supports to promote and maintain mental health. This information may also help victims to address general feelings of anxiety and isolation that come from finding themselves in an unknown and unfamiliar system, to prepare up-to-date relevant victim statements for review board hearings, and to plan for their safety.

Additionally, having this type of information may help victims on their healing journey. Experts state that:

In addition to the victim's need to feel safe, information about the offender's treatment plan and movement within the correctional system may promote the psychological healing of some victims, and may directly increase victim satisfaction with the justice process.

Though we must be careful to note that this relates to victims of an offender who is sentenced and who moves through the criminal justice process, it's not difficult to imagine how the same types of information could also assist victims in NCR cases.

Despite these benefits, victims in NCR cases have significantly fewer entitlements to information than do those offenders who move through the corrections and conditional release system. To address this gap, I recommend that Bill C-54 be further enhanced to ultimately provide victims in NCR cases with rights similar to those of victims in the criminal justice system.

Please note that all of the recommendations I am going to provide should apply only in cases where they do not pose a safety risk to the accused, the facility, or an individual, and only in cases where the victim requests the information.

Specifically I recommend that the following rights be added to the bill: that victims be advised of the location of the forensic facility where the accused is detained; that victims be given advance notice of any scheduled absence, either escorted or unescorted, from the hospital, and the general destination, city or town, to which the accused will be travelling; that victims be given advance notice of the destination of release or conditional discharge, or if the accused, on conditional discharge, will be travelling to the vicinity of the victims; that victims be informed of any conditions of release for the accused when they are conditionally discharged into the community—this may include such things as mandated medication or treatment, non-communication with children or others, the requirement to attend treatment sessions, general mobility restrictions, and more—and that victims be given advance notice of any scheduled transfer to another facility or change in the level of security of their ward, or move by the accused to another province or territory, for the purpose of treatment.

In addition to these measures, I would also recommend that upon request, victims be given a chance to view, but not retain, a photo of the accused at time of release; that victims be notified when there are additional or increased restrictions on liberties placed on the accused, such as when the accused is brought back into the facility or has been transferred from a minimum to a medium or maximum security unit; and that victims be notified when non-communication orders are put in place.

Finally, though it relates to the administration of justice and is therefore a provincial matter, I would also submit for consideration the need to ensure that these rights are implemented effectively and that there are clear roles and processes in place in each province or territory to ensure victims receive the notifications they are entitled to. Having requested and received information from the Department of Justice's Policy Centre for Victim Issues, our office became aware that not all provinces and territories necessarily have a system in place to ensure victim notification. Without these systems in place to ensure that victims are, in fact, being notified, a codified right to notification becomes notional.

In conclusion, I strongly support Bill C-54's proposal to ensure that public safety is a paramount consideration in the decision-making related to the release of an accused as well as the inclusion of further measures to enhance victims' rights. If the further measures recommended are included, I believe that Bill C-54 will help ensure more equitable rights for victims of crime in cases where an accused is found to be not criminally responsible. All victims of crime deserve to be informed, considered, and protected, regardless of the mental state of the person who harmed them.

Thank you for the opportunity to bring the victim perspective to the study of this bill and for your consideration of the recommendations I have provided today to further strengthen this proposed legislation.

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Ms. O'Sullivan.

Our next and final presenters for this panel are from the review boards of Canada: Mr. Schneider and Mr. Walter.

You have 10 minutes, gentlemen.

[Bernd Walter, Chair, British Columbia Review Board, Association of Canadian Review Board Chairs]

Thank you, Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the opportunity to come here today and speak to you.

Time is fleeting, so I'm going to speak very quickly. The synopsis of my remarks has been passed out. I want you to also hear from my colleague Justice Schneider, who is not only a respected jurist but also a psychologist. He has authored many of the leading texts in Canada in this field, so he is an expert indeed.

The review board chairs who do this work on a daily basis have no wish to be pitted against or to appear to be opposing the interests of victims. We're all on the same side here. But there are provisions in this bill that the justices and review board chairs do not support. As well, as there is a judicial role in the bill, I should say that at least five of the current justices or chairs of the review boards of Canada are in fact sitting justices.

The bill does seem to pit decision-makers and clinicians against victims. Bill C-54 diminishes opportunities for the current system of incremental, stable, and monitored reintegration into the community, which we all know is part of the system, and instead will encourage treatment avoidance, eventually followed by possibly untested and unsupervised release situations.

The bill does not, as currently framed, accord with treatment science, risk-prediction science, or fiscal prudence. It will see more mentally ill offenders in jail and untreated. It's based on no evidence.

I've been watching the committee's work with interest, on CPAC, and it seems to me that many of the speakers who you get in, many of the very compelling situations that you're confronted with, are actually dealing with how an offender gets into a system, with how he or she gets the NCRMD verdict, as opposed to any evidence of problems with the system once the offender is in. There is no evidence that there is premature release, or of recidivism, once the person is in the system under the very careful scrutiny of the review board, so we feel that the bill has the potential, at least, to make the community less safe.

I'm not going to quibble with the highlight on public safety. I could name at least five Supreme Court judgments since 1999 that make that absolutely clear, but I understand the codification argument.

The additional criteria of “necessary and appropriate in the circumstances” replacing the “least onerous and least restrictive” criterion really has no sensible meaning. It is vague and fraught with interpretation difficulties. I think it encourages detention and restriction disproportionate to the individual's actual assessed risk.

The definition of “significant threat” and the other criteria in the new provision have at least five different definitions of risk, from significant, to substantial, to risk simpliciter. I really think that is a real challenge to consistent interpretation. The definition of “significant threat”, which is of course the threshold determination that we have to make in every single case, converts probability, to possibility, to risk simpliciter. In other words, any risk whatsoever may serve to detain. I think that will impose detention in cases of minor or even speculative risk and will also encourage the utilization of costly thousand-dollar-a-day hospital beds beyond the point when they are actually required to manage an individual's actual presenting risk.

The “high-risk accused” designation must be applied for before absolute discharge. It applies in defined “serious personal injury” offences, which in my view would be indictable offences possibly requiring more jury trial, burdening our justice system. It also requires the “substantial likelihood” of future violence, endangering “life or safety”, and also considers the brutality of the index offence. Risk assessment literature will tell you that brutality or past behaviour is not a good predictor in terms of the severity of recidivism. It just doesn't capture the essence, we think, of what you're trying to achieve, or the kinds of outlier cases that are actually mobilizing this particular bill.

I won't speak to the 36-month provision. I do think the requirement to go back to court to stop the high-risk designation will mean that once a person comes back from the court with that designation revoked, it may actually mean he's entitled to an absolute discharge when he or she gets back to the board. I think that's problematic.

I should say that courts are not experts in risk prediction. Courts look back. They try to assess evidence to see if something happened, if an offence occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. The review boards, with psychiatrists and with community members already on them, are the experts in future risk prediction.

We have no quarrel with particularly the victim provisions, although I should say that those provisions have been around since 2005 in Ontario and B.C. Every victim is provided with notice initially, with an option to continue to receive notice of hearings or to waive that. Since 2005 not a single victim has asked to read a victim impact statement in B.C., even though they're constantly being provided with notice and a brochure of their rights.

Finally, we think there's no persuasive evidence that the current system is wanting.

We think it's charter challenge rich. It sacrifices proportionality. It drifts, unfortunately, from treatment to punishment, and the three-year term may actually decrease scrutiny of the most dangerous and most concerning individuals in the system. The bill is also, I should say, at odds with the Mental Health Commission's own study on recidivism by mentally disordered offenders.

I'd like Justice Schneider to have some time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have four minutes, sir.

[Justice Richard D. Schneider, Chair, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Review Board, Review Boards Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me here to make submissions to the committee.

At the outset, I should indicate that I endorse fully and echo the submissions of my colleague Bernd Walter.

I'll speak very generally, in a broad fashion, about the three or four main areas of the bill.

With respect to the new enhanced notice provisions to victims, the review boards of Canada really take no position, but would note parenthetically that it seems to be antithetical to some of what's been in the media about victims' desire to be less engaged and not revictimized annually. This set of provisions, to our mind, drags the victims into the system and enmeshes them more fully. In Ontario we have a system where the victims can waive off future notices, and that is indeed where many of them, if not most, go. They do not wish to be further engaged or enmeshed in the system.

With respect to public safety as a paramount concern, as Bernd Walter has indicated, that has been the law for a decade or more. The review boards take no position with that.

With respect to the threshold of “least onerous and least restrictive” being replaced by “necessary and appropriate”, we note that it's a conjunctive test, which most of the academics find puzzling more than anything. When would something be necessary but not appropriate, or the opposite?

The real problem, to our mind, comes with the “high-risk accused” designation. It's with respect to this that there is grave potential for the amendments to actually, contrary to their purported aim, make the public much less safe rather than more safe.

One must remember that individuals who are prospective HRAs are individuals who have elected to avail themselves of the NCR defence. By putting into part XX.1 provisions that might, for a lack of a better way of putting it, appear frightening to the accused—for example, the prospect of being locked up in a hospital, where clinically contraindicated, for up to three years with no opportunity for review—you will inevitably find many accused not availing themselves of the NCR defence. The result of that, of course, is that they will take their chances, take their lumps, in the regular prosecutorial stream. That same individual who might otherwise have gone through part XX.1 in the review board system will one day be dropped out onto the street with no supervision, no gradual reintegration, no treatment.

That, Mr. Chairman, is a much more dangerous situation. The potential here is that the amendments will scare individuals who are presently being very well looked after, and whose reintegration into the community is a very carefully monitored, titrated process, out of that system and into one that would simply have them out onto the street, with no controls in place whatsoever. As Mr. Walter indicated, this is in no way a contest between those who are for public safety as opposed to those who are for accused rights. All professionals engaged in the system recognize that public safety is the paramount concern. That is our collective objective. Our submission is that the amendments proposed in Bill C-54 will, however, take us the wrong way down that road.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those presentations.

We will now go to our rounds of questions.

Our first questioner from the New Democratic Party is Mr. Mai.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

I especially thank you, Mr. Shreeve, for your testimony. Thank you as well for your courage in sharing your story with us. It helps us understand more in terms of victims.

Ms. O'Sullivan, you mentioned the fact that you want victims to be more informed, and we have procedures here. Do you think victims would also want to know, for instance, where the residence of the accused is once they are released? Is more information better for the victims? If they want to have it, is it something that would be beneficial for victims?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

You have touched on something very important, which is that victims need to feel safe. As you know, what determines how a victim feels safe will differ for different victims. You've already heard from many witnesses before this committee about that need to feel safe, and that includes information you have heard from witnesses who have come across the accused in the community, and they weren't even aware that the accused was out.

If we're going to ask victims to have confidence in the system, we need to make sure it's transparent and that they have the information they need so that they don't run into an accused in the community when they aren't even aware. As I said in my earlier testimony, I know many provinces, but not all, have notification systems in place, usually through victims services. This is the information I received from the Policy Centre for Victim Issues. For example, I know in one of the territories they don't. In others they are working toward that, and on a positive note, many of the provinces that don't have that system in place are working to do that.

We want to ensure that the victims are going to have confidence in the system, that they are informed. I won't go through the recommendations that I made in my testimony again, but all those issues about ensuring they feel they are included and are informed.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.

Justice Schneider and Mr. Walter, can you explain to us how the review board works with the court decision? If we give the final decision to the court but the court has the possibility to engage with the review board and listen to what the review board has to say in its decision, is that something you would be comfortable with?

[Justice Richard D. Schneider]

I don't understand the question.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

When you evaluate the accused and there is a review decision, according to this bill, the decision comes to the court at the end of the day. The court makes a decision in terms of—

[Justice Richard D. Schneider]

Is that with respect to high-risk accused?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Exactly. Do you feel comfortable if the judge makes a decision in discussion with the review board?

[Bernd Walter]

The review board is a judicial body, chaired by a justice or a retired justice or someone eligible to be a justice, so it is invidious for two judicial bodies to be speaking to each other. Certainly the recommendation around revoking high-risk designation will be made by the review board, but for these two decision-making bodies to speak to each other, I can't quite understand how that would work.

Richard, maybe you understand the question differently.

[Justice Richard D. Schneider]

No, I don't think I have anything to add. I'm sorry.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Would you be in favour of giving more power to the review board, or making the final decision the review board's instead of the court's?

[Justice Richard D. Schneider]

The review boards currently handle these accused, as you know, and there is no suggestion or no evidence, no data whatsoever, that those individuals who, under the proposed amendments, might become HRAs.... There's no suggestion that this group of individuals is currently not being handled in a very appropriate manner. I don't see the advantage of bringing two judicial bodies into the fray, especially when there's no suggestion that the way things are currently operating is defective in any way.

[Bernd Walter]

There's no evidence that people are being released prematurely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, thank you very much.

Our next questioner is Mr. Goguen from the Conservative Party.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess that every one of the witnesses recognizes that this legislation is founded on two basic premises. The first one is making the security of the public the paramount consideration in releasing the not criminally responsible. I think everyone agrees on that. Of course, the second one is the involvement of the victims and their being informed.

In New Brunswick, for instance, at least when I left in 2011, the mental health commission was not chaired by a judge, so in essence, one of the things this legislation tries to accomplish is to ensure uniformity. I notice that both Judge Schneider and Mr. Walter said they agreed on the codification of security of the public being the paramount principle, the foundation of this thing. That's why it's there.

In New Brunswick I don't believe we have a judge sitting on the mental health commission. Do you believe this codification would be useful if only to serve the purpose of uniformity, making sure it's an overriding principle that is considered in all cases?

[Justice Richard D. Schneider]

Sir, as we were saying, that is the law today as we speak. Codifying the common law will not change the law in any way. It's for that reason that the review boards take no position on that amendment to section 672.54. The Supreme Court of Canada has told us—

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

You mean Conway.